Same Sex Marriage

[GodlessEvil]

Well you don't think gay sex or gay marriage is a perversion of a natural and clean society.

We are not likely to agree, i mean for one thing i think paedophiles and rapists should be executed, and clearly your liberal stomach would be too weak to accept such a punishment as fair within society.

A society that accepts too much diversion from traditional values is a weak one and one that allows rapists and paedophiles to exist and continue to exist.

Our society is weak, at least in the UK i think it is weak, there is not much holding it together, it splits paths, gangs are part of split culture, chavs are part of split culture, goths are part of it and indeed those who worship one music band or singer are part of it.

I believe in something that should unify people in a way that prevents too much diversion, in other words you should only have one culture and one society as a unity.

Sway away from it and divert you end up with these split paths i mentioned.

 

[charles cure]

Well you don't think gay sex or gay marriage is a perversion of a natural and clean society.

We are not likely to agree, i mean for one thing i think paedophiles and rapists should be executed, and clearly your liberal stomach would be too weak to accept such a punishment as fair within society.

A society that accepts too much diversion from traditional values is a weak one and one that allows rapists and paedophiles to exist and continue to exist.

Our society is weak, at least in the UK i think it is weak, there is not much holding it together, it splits paths, gangs are part of split culture, chavs are part of split culture, goths are part of it and indeed those who worship one music band or singer are part of it.

I believe in something that should unify people in a way that prevents too much diversion, in other words you should only have one culture and one society as a unity.

Sway away from it and divert you end up with these split paths i mentioned.

youll never have one culture and retain any sense of freedom. what if the people dont want to be involved in your culture? what do you do? kick them out of the country? imprison them? kill them? they'd overthrow the government, or they'd flee, but either way its not easy to get people to fit one mold all the time. it doesnt work and never has. for an example see the fall of the Soviet Union where people were all forced to live under one set of ideals in a great "unified" society.

i see that you have some sort of distaste for liberals, i'm not one. but i do favor the fair and reasonable application of laws, which is apparently something you do not favor. publicly sanctioned execution of criminals criminalizes society as a whole. you cant live in a society that claims to have respect for life if murder is punished with murder, whether committed by a single person or the public at large, or if lesser crimes like rape are punished with murder. i would support castration as a punishment for rapists and paedophiles, or forced sterilization at least, but not death. what makes a society weak isnt that they allow rapists and paedophiles to exist, because they will always exist. a weak society is the one that does not admit that rape and paedophilia are symptoms of all societies, and refuses to come up with a punishment that properly fits the crime, which, i might add is one that will result in the behavior being changed or prevented from ever occuring again, but you need not stoop so low as to murder those people to accomplish it.

you say that a society becomes weak when it strays too far from traditional values. i disagree. i think society becomes weak when it fails to admit that the social climate has changed to the point where the traditions and values it holds dear no longer serve them in the way they were intended to. if society clings to the ideas of the past, it will get stuck in the past.

 

[GodlessEvil]

I have a distaste for communism,liberals and capitalism.
Although i do share some beliefs with the far left, i do not like it as a social economic system.

Respect for life is one that can be measured by society as a unit, if certain individuals suffer death due to being outside that unit, then it is simply that they are weak and we are strong.

When you watch a tiger take down a deer, we must not sympaphise with the deer, we must admit that the (weak) deer simply died to keep the (strong) tiger going and continue to be strong and survive.

If suddenly the tiger was to say to itself "hmmn i'll leave that deer alone i do not want it to suffer"
the tiger would then be the weak and would die.

This is not to say all the deer should be wiped out that is not the metaphor, only to state that sympathy with the deer would end in the destruction of the tiger.

Is the tiger evil?
no of course not, it simply understands its place in the world and understands that survival means making sacrifice.

A tiger is a humanitarian even if it can be ruthless at times.

 

[charles cure]

I have a distaste for communism,liberals and capitalism.
Although i do share some beliefs with the far left, i do not like it as a social economic system.

Respect for life is one that can be measured by society as a unit, if certain individuals suffer death due to being outside that unit, then it is simply that they are weak and we are strong.

When you watch a tiger take down a deer, we must not sympaphise with the deer, we must admit that the (weak) deer simply died to keep the (strong) tiger going and continue to be strong and survive.

If suddenly the tiger was to say to itself "hmmn i'll leave that deer alone i do not want it to suffer"
the tiger would then be the weak and would die.

This is not to say all the deer should be wiped out that is not the metaphor, only to state that sympathy with the deer would end in the destruction of the tiger.

Is the tiger evil?
no of course not, it simply understands its place in the world and understands that survival means making sacrifice.

A tiger is a humanitarian even if it can be ruthless at times.

your analogy fails to relate to the subject of same sex marriage.

and a tiger is not a humanitarian. its a tiger.
a predatory animal does what it must to survive. it doesnt have a highly developed social hierarchy like humans do, and does not have a grasp of the concept of justice or of fairness in the same sense that a person does. thats why a tiger is not a murderer and the natural world, insofar as predators and prey are concerned is not judged by the behavioral standards of human society. by that same thought process, human society should not be thought of in only darwinian terms either, because there are clear and significant differences that seperate the human world from the world that is solely at the mercy of natural forces.
a crucial seperator of animals and people is the human ability to attach a moral significance to action. animals do not or can not do this so they arent subject to our judgement of the rights and wrongs they may do to each other. however, in order to retain one of the essential elements of our humanity, it is important that we do not boil every social issue down to a predator vs prey context. not many situations are encountered by humans where the case is truly kill or be killed, or kill to survive. when these cases are encountered, people still reserve the right to analyze and judge the actions of those involved.

human society cant be boiled down to simply a situation where only the strong survive, because it is obviously not that way now, and probably has not been since the very dawn of civilization itself. in fact, i would say part of what it means to be civilized is that the stronger protect the weak, and in doing so exhibit the truly human qualities of sympathy, empathy, compassion, and love. i know that may sound pretty squishy and bleeding heart liberal to you, but what else really seperates us from just bestial anarchy if not that? society, without an interest in protecting the physically weak from time to time would have lost great contributions to scholarship, science, art, technology, government and many other areas. we progress because we are not the same as animals. a tiger is a tiger now and has gone through very little change in millions of years. humanity has revolutionized itself and wrought change on the earth and reinvented itself over and over again in half that time. what makes us the dominant life form is that we know better than animals.

 

[SnakeLord]

youre missing the point of it then.

I didn't miss the point of anything. Why in the world must you think that my sentence was directed in any way to your posts or 'points'?

im not gay but i still think gay marriage should be allowed. why?

As I clearly stated, I couldn't honestly give a shit what people do as long as they do it away from me. Pamela Anderson got her dogs married, and while that isn't normal, and probably isn't sane, she can do whatever she wants as long as it doesn't affect me.

I don't particularly like gay people, much like I don't particularly like christians - but as long as they don't interfere in my life they can do or believe in whatever they want to. The problem will arise when people try to argue from the position that queers are somehow "normal", which they most certainly are not. Now, while I do not really care for the religious ceremony known as marriage - and don't care who marries who or what, I don't argue that it's ok for homosexuals to marry because they somehow deserve the same rights as everyone else, but that I simply don't care what people do as long as they don't do it near me.

however, the outcome of this issue will have an impact on the power struggle between secular morals and christian morals and which one is allowed to define law in our culture in the US.

Then fight to remove marriage. It is after all a vastly outdated religious concept.

However, let it be said that marriage is a ceremony built around a lifetime bond between a man and a woman - not a man and man, or man and frog, hedgehog or garden variety vegetable. Just because a man has these 'feelings' towards a brussel sprout should he have the right to trample over a long-standing man/woman ceremony just to cater for his oddities?

Of course let me just clarify once more that I don't personally care what they do as long as it doesn't involve me.

i would see christian definitions of morality replaced with ones that make logical sense

Such as? Where is the "logic" in allowing same sex marriages?

and are based on modern definitions of right and wrong

Who's definition? I personally consider queers as being "wrong". It doesn't take a lot of studying to work out that a dick belongs in a fanny, not an asshole.

as articulated by fact-based opinion and evaluation of what advances the common good while protecting the rights of all

Fact: Dicks do not belong up bottoms.

While you can hardly outlaw people doing such bizarre and disgusting things, you can make it known that doing such sickening things should not be encouraged by society.

insofar as this can be done. the politico-religious agenda of some people in the United States will not allow for such a shift in the cultural paradigm because they believe that ancient biases predicated on scriptural teaching should remain the only pool from which authority and moral superiority can be drawn.

Religion aside, homosexuality just isn't 'right'. Ok, if they really want to bum hump each other, I wont get in their way - as long as they stay away from me. Same if you wanted to bonk a donkey, or buy a vibrating penis attachment for your computer - but that in no way means you should have rights usurp a long standing ceremony celebrating lifelong union of man and woman - whether that ceremony has it's roots in religion or not.

gay marriage is one issue among many that, depending on how it is decided, can help make a change toward favoring rationality and objective ethics as the basis for law.

And one step closer to fighting for the right to legalise a whole host of perversions.

 

[charles cure]

I didn't miss the point of anything. Why in the world must you think that my sentence was directed in any way to your posts or 'points'?

can i now not respond to certain people because they didnt direct their statements at anyone in particular? come on, dont be a dick.

As I clearly stated, I couldn't honestly give a shit what people do as long as they do it away from me. Pamela Anderson got her dogs married, and while that isn't normal, and probably isn't sane, she can do whatever she wants as long as it doesn't affect me.

well you are affected by what other people do, accept it. people are interrelated and interdependent. you can ignore or refuse to admit the significance of their actions and issues that arise from them, but you cant escape their impact. well, you could go live in a hole i guess.

I don't particularly like gay people, much like I don't particularly like christians - but as long as they don't interfere in my life they can do or believe in whatever they want to. The problem will arise when people try to argue from the position that queers are somehow "normal", which they most certainly are not. Now, while I do not really care for the religious ceremony known as marriage - and don't care who marries who or what, I don't argue that it's ok for homosexuals to marry because they somehow deserve the same rights as everyone else, but that I simply don't care what people do as long as they don't do it near me.

so what is your problem then? if you dont care, why have a stance or a response at all? you are trying to act like you dont care but really you have an opinion and an objection.

Then fight to remove marriage. It is after all a vastly outdated religious concept.

However, let it be said that marriage is a ceremony built around a lifetime bond between a man and a woman - not a man and man, or man and frog, hedgehog or garden variety vegetable. Just because a man has these 'feelings' towards a brussel sprout should he have the right to trample over a long-standing man/woman ceremony just to cater for his oddities?

Of course let me just clarify once more that I don't personally care what they do as long as it doesn't involve me.

first off, marriage is only an outdated concept if the nature of it cannot adapt through time to accomodate new realities of society. so it may be outdated, we'll see i guess if it disappears or not.

as for whether or not gay people have the right to "trample over a long-standing man/woman ceremony jut to cater to his oddities" thats not the issue. allowing gay people to get married doesnt stop heterosexuals from getting married. it doesnt change the religious nature of marriage at all, only the legal definition of it. a priest could still refuse to marry a gay couple because he sees it as unchristian. the church, im sure, would fully retain its own interpretation of marriage, and it would remain intact regardless of which unions were legally sanctioned or not. i mean does it trample on marriage when people get married by a justice of the peace and have no church ceremony? because marriage is traditionally a ceremony where a man and woman have their relationship validated by a priest in the eyes of god. the legal part of it is a mere formality except for the fact that it allows married couples to enjoy specific privileges under the letter of the law.
the same sex marriage issue doesnt focus on the religious aspect of marriage, but the legal one. as normal law-abiding people, regardless of what kind of sex they practice in the privacy of their homes, they should be able to be accorded the same privileges under the law as other loving couples who are allowed to marry.

as for that stupid little thing about people not being able to marry frogs or hedgehogs or anything else, well youre right, but thats completely different from an issue about whether marriage should take place between two humans, for this reason that i posted earlier:

the reason you wouldnt marry your cat or dog or horse is because it can be demonstrated that the animal would actually not be aware of the union in any real sense, therefore making it impossible for the vows (even if they were to somehow be pronounced by the animal) to be honored. so thats why people dont marry animals, because the animal wouldnt know that its was married and we couldnt tell if we were marrying the animal against its will or not. its pointless for both parties involved.

you can take it out to all the ridiculous extremes you want, but legalization of gay marriage wont result in widespread beastiality or anything else, you can breathe easy...oh wait, i forgot you dont care about it.

Such as? Where is the "logic" in allowing same sex marriages?

its logical that laws should be written to apply fairly. if they aren't, you can't depend on them to provide any authority. the marriage law doesnt apply fairly, it denies a segment of the population the right to have their relationship legally recognized because of the nature of their sexual relationship. it is at its best discriminatory because the criteria for a valid relationship in this society is set by the bible, despite the fact that not all people accept that document as fair or authoritative or feel that they should be forced to live according to its biases.

Who's definition? I personally consider queers as being "wrong". It doesn't take a lot of studying to work out that a dick belongs in a fanny, not an asshole.

you know i laughed at this statement when i first saw it until i realized that fanny clearly doesnt mean the same thing in the US as it does in the UK.
who's definition? the definition that society at large will accept that is based on ideas that have a basis is logic and are able to be demonstrated as fair and capable of promoting the good of all people in a society (including the minority interest). the definition that has moved away from law as based in religious superstition and given authority by god instead of man himself.

and this is clearly splitting hairs i guess, but does that last statment mean that you think anal sex as practiced between a man and a woman should be cause to prevent them from getting married? because a penis belongs in a vagina after all...

Fact: Dicks do not belong up bottoms.

While you can hardly outlaw people doing such bizarre and disgusting things, you can make it known that doing such sickening things should not be encouraged by society.

allowed and encouraged are two different concepts, get your head around it.

Religion aside, homosexuality just isn't 'right'. Ok, if they really want to bum hump each other, I wont get in their way - as long as they stay away from me. Same if you wanted to bonk a donkey, or buy a vibrating penis attachment for your computer - but that in no way means you should have rights usurp a long standing ceremony celebrating lifelong union of man and woman - whether that ceremony has it's roots in religion or not.

how do you place a judgement of right or wrong on something that someone else does that causes no one any unwanted physical or mental harm and that you are not being forced to do yourself against your will? homosexuality isn't the "right" way to procreate, but other than that, it seems that it would be out of the bounds of right or wrong unless you were forced to have sex with a gay person when you didnt want to, which i believe is still just called rape.
there are all kinds of subcultures who express themselves sexually in ways that are antithetical to reproduction. should those people not be able to get married either? or is it maybe just that you personally think that gay people are freaks or disgusting and so in your own opinion you place them on some special pedestal of perversity that no other group of sexual deviants can come close to? so what? maybe what isn't right is that you are so biased against people whose behavior has no effect on you, even though, i know, you dont care what they do as long as its away from you.

And one step closer to fighting for the right to legalise a whole host of perversions.

not true. when you legalize one thing, you do not magically give your approval to everything else that shares a similarity with it. your point of view here is the one normally taken by people who think that there is only one way to live, and that if everyone doesnt live that way, then the way of life itself is diminished or destroyed and society will be in ruins. in reality, legalizing same sex marriage would hardly be a blip on the radar of seriously important events in the development of human society.

 

[btimsah]

I didn't miss the point of anything. Why in the world must you think that my sentence was directed in any way to your posts or 'points'?



As I clearly stated, I couldn't honestly give a shit what people do as long as they do it away from me. Pamela Anderson got her dogs married, and while that isn't normal, and probably isn't sane, she can do whatever she wants as long as it doesn't affect me.

I don't particularly like gay people, much like I don't particularly like christians - but as long as they don't interfere in my life they can do or believe in whatever they want to. The problem will arise when people try to argue from the position that queers are somehow "normal", which they most certainly are not. Now, while I do not really care for the religious ceremony known as marriage - and don't care who marries who or what, I don't argue that it's ok for homosexuals to marry because they somehow deserve the same rights as everyone else, but that I simply don't care what people do as long as they don't do it near me.



Then fight to remove marriage. It is after all a vastly outdated religious concept.

However, let it be said that marriage is a ceremony built around a lifetime bond between a man and a woman - not a man and man, or man and frog, hedgehog or garden variety vegetable. Just because a man has these 'feelings' towards a brussel sprout should he have the right to trample over a long-standing man/woman ceremony just to cater for his oddities?

Of course let me just clarify once more that I don't personally care what they do as long as it doesn't involve me.



Such as? Where is the "logic" in allowing same sex marriages?



Who's definition? I personally consider queers as being "wrong". It doesn't take a lot of studying to work out that a dick belongs in a fanny, not an asshole.



Fact: Dicks do not belong up bottoms.

While you can hardly outlaw people doing such bizarre and disgusting things, you can make it known that doing such sickening things should not be encouraged by society.



Religion aside, homosexuality just isn't 'right'. Ok, if they really want to bum hump each other, I wont get in their way - as long as they stay away from me. Same if you wanted to bonk a donkey, or buy a vibrating penis attachment for your computer - but that in no way means you should have rights usurp a long standing ceremony celebrating lifelong union of man and woman - whether that ceremony has it's roots in religion or not.



And one step closer to fighting for the right to legalise a whole host of perversions.

Well, first of all you do care. Because every gay marriage in no way involves you. You seem to be against gay anal sex, more than anything. Which begs the question; What happened to you? Anal sex is hardly a gay-only thing and would only be considered "unnatural" by someone who only has sex in the missionairy position everytime, if at all. Oral and anal sex are not "natural" but can be a lot of fun... It does not matter weather it's straight couples engaging in it or gay ones. Well, it does not matter for me.

You're obsession with anal sex is rather strange, when you consider many straight couples engage in anal sex.

I'm gay and I have never had anal sex once, nor do I care to. So you can take you ignorant judgements and shove them.. wait.. NO!! Nevermind!

I would'nt want you to do that NEAR ME.

 

[jayleew]

I have read some interesting arguments on why America should not adopt homosexual marriage, and the countries that do allow the practice are great examples:

Homosexual Norwegians, Swedes, and Netherlanders wanted homosexual marriage so that they could be accepted, not so they could participate in monogamous relationships.

Cohabitation without discrimination could be the goal.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200407210936.asp

After the passing of legalization of homosexual marriages, why should we have marriage as an institution? Why should it be a public matter and not private?

In short, passing such litigation would destroy the definition of a marriage because it sets a legal precedent and questions our traditional foundations of what marriage is.

Homosexual activists will not stop until the definition is completely destroyed. The history of the movement was an inch by inch strategy, why should it stop at legalization of marriage...even if that is their goal? Most homosexuals do NOT want to marry each other. That entangles them in all sorts of legal constraints.

Activists have created a new word to replace the outmoded terms infidelity, adultery, cheating, and promiscuity. It is called polyamorous. Here is what liberal Michael Kinsley wrote in a July 2003 piece in the Post:

[The] solution is to end the institution of marriage, or rather, the solution is to end the institution of government monopoly on marriage. And yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself and someone else wnats to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let 'em. If you and your government aren't implicated, what do you care? If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriages would become irrelevant.


Judith Levine supports these ideas:

Because American marriage is inextricable from Christianity, it admits participants as Noah let animals on the ark. But it doesn't have to be that way. In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the 'repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.' Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders."


Here is the coalition, showing it's ugly true intentions, which is destruction of marriage as it is currently defined.

Despite what we are reading in the media, the homosexual agenda is NOT marriage for gays. It is marriage for no one.

Homosexuals are rarely monogamous. They have as many as three hundred partners in a lifetime.
-M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times. p 40-61.

Other studies show it is typically more than one thousand.
-A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. p 308-9

What impact will that make on children?

More than ten thousand studies have concluded that children do best when they are raised by committed mothers AND fathers. I have the list, but here is a couple:
-David Popenoe, Life Withoud Father: Compelling Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage Are Indispensable for the Good of Children.
-Richard Koestner, The Family Origins of Empathic Concern: A Twenty-Six-Year Longitudinal Study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. p 58.

What effect will that have on adopted children?

All couples cannot be excluded. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evalution of eligibility any more. And yet we have more than ten thousand studies that show children are more functional with both a mother and father.

Like in California, it will be against the law from teaching foster children your own morals concerning sexuality if you do not believe in homosexuality. This will effect everyone, so we all need to care about this issue.

What about our health care systems?

Company-paid coverage will be granted to more people, since ineligable dependents will now be eligible, and implode the system.

What about schools?

With new legislation, our children will be educated that it is morally equivalent to traditional marriage. How is that fair to families, who disagree? It is happening in California already.
www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html
AB 499 (1998), AB 537 (1999), AB 1785 (2000), AB 1931 (2000), AB 1945 (2000), SB 257 (2001)

What about religious freedom? What is going on in Canada?

Religious freedom is dying. On April 28, 2004, the Parliament passed Bill C-250, which effectively criminalized speech or writings that criticize homosexualtiy. OK, so the Bible could be considered criminal?

Do we need to make a new Bible?

A printing press owner was fined over $40,000 for refusing to print stationery for a homosexual activist group. Nonprofit church groups would lose their tax exemptions if they refused to hire a homosexual on religious grounds.

If you don't believe we will adopt homosexuality, then why is the Supreme Court look to European and Canadian law in the interpretation of our Constitution?
-Micheal Kirkland, "On Law: A Court for All Caesars"

There are some that are apathetic to homosexual marriages because it does not directly affect them, they are sorely mistaken and need to take a stance.

 

[charles cure]

I have read some interesting arguments on why America should not adopt homosexual marriage, and the countries that do allow the practice are great examples:

Homosexual Norwegians, Swedes, and Netherlanders wanted homosexual marriage so that they could be accepted, not so they could participate in monogamous relationships.

Cohabitation without discrimination could be the goal.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200407210936.asp

After the passing of legalization of homosexual marriages, why should we have marriage as an institution? Why should it be a public matter and not private?

In short, passing such litigation would destroy the definition of a marriage because it sets a legal precedent and questions our traditional foundations of what marriage is.

Homosexual activists will not stop until the definition is completely destroyed. The history of the movement was an inch by inch strategy, why should it stop at legalization of marriage...even if that is their goal? Most homosexuals do NOT want to marry each other. That entangles them in all sorts of legal constraints.

Activists have created a new word to replace the outmoded terms infidelity, adultery, cheating, and promiscuity. It is called polyamorous. Here is what liberal Michael Kinsley wrote in a July 2003 piece in the Post:

[The] solution is to end the institution of marriage, or rather, the solution is to end the institution of government monopoly on marriage. And yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself and someone else wnats to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let 'em. If you and your government aren't implicated, what do you care? If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriages would become irrelevant.


Judith Levine supports these ideas:

Because American marriage is inextricable from Christianity, it admits participants as Noah let animals on the ark. But it doesn't have to be that way. In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the 'repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.' Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders."


Here is the coalition, showing it's ugly true intentions, which is destruction of marriage as it is currently defined.

Despite what we are reading in the media, the homosexual agenda is NOT marriage for gays. It is marriage for no one.

Homosexuals are rarely monogamous. They have as many as three hundred partners in a lifetime.
-M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times. p 40-61.

Other studies show it is typically more than one thousand.
-A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. p 308-9

What impact will that make on children?

More than ten thousand studies have concluded that children do best when they are raised by committed mothers AND fathers. I have the list, but here is a couple:
-David Popenoe, Life Withoud Father: Compelling Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage Are Indispensable for the Good of Children.
-Richard Koestner, The Family Origins of Empathic Concern: A Twenty-Six-Year Longitudinal Study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. p 58.

What effect will that have on adopted children?

All couples cannot be excluded. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evalution of eligibility any more. And yet we have more than ten thousand studies that show children are more functional with both a mother and father.

Like in California, it will be against the law from teaching foster children your own morals concerning sexuality if you do not believe in homosexuality. This will effect everyone, so we all need to care about this issue.

What about our health care systems?

Company-paid coverage will be granted to more people, since ineligable dependents will now be eligible, and implode the system.

What about schools?

With new legislation, our children will be educated that it is morally equivalent to traditional marriage. How is that fair to families, who disagree? It is happening in California already.
www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html
AB 499 (1998), AB 537 (1999), AB 1785 (2000), AB 1931 (2000), AB 1945 (2000), SB 257 (2001)

What about religious freedom? What is going on in Canada?

Religious freedom is dying. On April 28, 2004, the Parliament passed Bill C-250, which effectively criminalized speech or writings that criticize homosexualtiy. OK, so the Bible could be considered criminal?

Do we need to make a new Bible?

A printing press owner was fined over $40,000 for refusing to print stationery for a homosexual activist group. Nonprofit church groups would lose their tax exemptions if they refused to hire a homosexual on religious grounds.

If you don't believe we will adopt homosexuality, then why is the Supreme Court look to European and Canadian law in the interpretation of our Constitution?
-Micheal Kirkland, "On Law: A Court for All Caesars"

There are some that are apathetic to homosexual marriages because it does not directly affect them, they are sorely mistaken and need to take a stance.

so you went out of your way to find extremist people who have ridiculous views on the subject and who seek to spin the gay agenda that they arent even sure exists in a cohesive way?

I agree with this statement to a large extent:

"[The] solution is to end the institution of marriage, or rather, the solution is to end the institution of government monopoly on marriage. And yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself and someone else wnats to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let 'em. If you and your government aren't implicated, what do you care? If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriages would become irrelevant."

I mean why exactly should married couples be accorded extra rights under the law anyway? if you took that away then married or not married wouldnt matter, and what would really matter would be people's commitment to each other. how is that not better than only allowing some people to marry, then giving them extra rights, in turn causing groups with both valid and invalid claims to the right of marriage to come out of the woodwork and demand extra benefits? i mean why not just let the church marry people if they want to be married and then erase the legal aspect of marriage? is it fear that we will somehow lose our grip on reality if a mother-father-child paradigm for family life falls to the wayside? to a large extent in the US it already has, a pathetically slim majority of people live in a family unit that is comprised of their father and mother and themselves, many live with one parent or the other in a single parent environment. so if marriage has been eroded to this point by no-fault divorce, why not just make it a private and not public distinction and redefine the model of the family to something that is more flexible and realistic? how terrible would that be for us?

 

[jayleew]

I mean why exactly should married couples be accorded extra rights under the law anyway? if you took that away then married or not married wouldnt matter, and what would really matter would be people's commitment to each other. how is that not better than only allowing some people to marry, then giving them extra rights, in turn causing groups with both valid and invalid claims to the right of marriage to come out of the woodwork and demand extra benefits? i mean why not just let the church marry people if they want to be married and then erase the legal aspect of marriage? is it fear that we will somehow lose our grip on reality if a mother-father-child paradigm for family life falls to the wayside? to a large extent in the US it already has, a pathetically slim majority of people live in a family unit that is comprised of their father and mother and themselves, many live with one parent or the other in a single parent environment. so if marriage has been eroded to this point by no-fault divorce, why not just make it a private and not public distinction and redefine the model of the family to something that is more flexible and realistic? how terrible would that be for us?

I see your point of view, but your perception is blinding you to all implications of marriage in society. It is a crucial part to the moral fabric that we are losing.

Why shouldn't we as a society not embrace sound Psychology that children are better off with a mother and a father?

I also agree with the arguement that if you took it away, it is not an issue, and everyone could be happy.

But, are we examining the implications far enough to make a wise decision?

Are you willing to accept polygamy and any other practice that a person does in private? Do you think Christianity could thrive in a society that accepts homosexuality? With all the discrimination laws, could Christians practice their faith and speak their mind?

Just like in Canada?

Now, maybe you have the answer to your original question on why Christians take a political stand. Maybe their faith's well-being depends on it and they are acting out of survival instinct. Canada is a good example of that viewpoint.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I have read some interesting arguments on why America should not adopt homosexual marriage, and the countries that do allow the practice are great examples:

Homosexual Norwegians, Swedes, and Netherlanders wanted homosexual marriage so that they could be accepted, not so they could participate in monogamous relationships.

Cohabitation without discrimination could be the goal.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200407210936.asp

After the passing of legalization of homosexual marriages, why should we have marriage as an institution? Why should it be a public matter and not private?

In short, passing such litigation would destroy the definition of a marriage because it sets a legal precedent and questions our traditional foundations of what marriage is.

Homosexual activists will not stop until the definition is completely destroyed. The history of the movement was an inch by inch strategy, why should it stop at legalization of marriage...even if that is their goal? Most homosexuals do NOT want to marry each other. That entangles them in all sorts of legal constraints.

Activists have created a new word to replace the outmoded terms infidelity, adultery, cheating, and promiscuity. It is called polyamorous. Here is what liberal Michael Kinsley wrote in a July 2003 piece in the Post:

[The] solution is to end the institution of marriage, or rather, the solution is to end the institution of government monopoly on marriage. And yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself and someone else wnats to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let 'em. If you and your government aren't implicated, what do you care? If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriages would become irrelevant.


Judith Levine supports these ideas:

Because American marriage is inextricable from Christianity, it admits participants as Noah let animals on the ark. But it doesn't have to be that way. In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the 'repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.' Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders."


Here is the coalition, showing it's ugly true intentions, which is destruction of marriage as it is currently defined.

Despite what we are reading in the media, the homosexual agenda is NOT marriage for gays. It is marriage for no one.

Homosexuals are rarely monogamous. They have as many as three hundred partners in a lifetime.
-M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times. p 40-61.

Other studies show it is typically more than one thousand.
-A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. p 308-9

What impact will that make on children?

More than ten thousand studies have concluded that children do best when they are raised by committed mothers AND fathers. I have the list, but here is a couple:
-David Popenoe, Life Withoud Father: Compelling Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage Are Indispensable for the Good of Children.
-Richard Koestner, The Family Origins of Empathic Concern: A Twenty-Six-Year Longitudinal Study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. p 58.

What effect will that have on adopted children?

All couples cannot be excluded. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evalution of eligibility any more. And yet we have more than ten thousand studies that show children are more functional with both a mother and father.

Like in California, it will be against the law from teaching foster children your own morals concerning sexuality if you do not believe in homosexuality. This will effect everyone, so we all need to care about this issue.

What about our health care systems?

Company-paid coverage will be granted to more people, since ineligable dependents will now be eligible, and implode the system.

What about schools?

With new legislation, our children will be educated that it is morally equivalent to traditional marriage. How is that fair to families, who disagree? It is happening in California already.
www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html
AB 499 (1998), AB 537 (1999), AB 1785 (2000), AB 1931 (2000), AB 1945 (2000), SB 257 (2001)

What about religious freedom? What is going on in Canada?

Religious freedom is dying. On April 28, 2004, the Parliament passed Bill C-250, which effectively criminalized speech or writings that criticize homosexualtiy. OK, so the Bible could be considered criminal?

Do we need to make a new Bible?

A printing press owner was fined over $40,000 for refusing to print stationery for a homosexual activist group. Nonprofit church groups would lose their tax exemptions if they refused to hire a homosexual on religious grounds.

If you don't believe we will adopt homosexuality, then why is the Supreme Court look to European and Canadian law in the interpretation of our Constitution?
-Micheal Kirkland, "On Law: A Court for All Caesars"

There are some that are apathetic to homosexual marriages because it does not directly affect them, they are sorely mistaken and need to take a stance.

*************
M*W: You know, jayleew, you never fail to disgust me on this forum. Same sex marriage IS NOT ABOUT homosexual sex. It's about equal rights under the law. It is NOT up to the government to decide who can be a "family." If that were the case, we'd be drowning all our newborn daughters like they do in China!

Although I really cannot speak for another country, as Americans we have always been told we are equal under the law, but the govenment has lied for two and a quarter centuries. I've already explained in another post how the institution of marriage came to be, and aside from the men who turned it into a religious rite, it was also another way for the Church to make money by selling the god damned rite.

About same sex partners ruining children's minds -- it's not what these children learn from homosexuals, it's the crap that people like you put in their minds. It's people like YOU who should have their children taken away from them! Same sex parents don't fill their children's minds with lies. They are taught acceptance of others all of their lives. Same sex partners are monogamous, otherwise they would have remained single.

Christians are the most evil animals around.

 

[charles cure]

I see your point of view, but your perception is blinding you to all implications of marriage in society. It is a crucial part to the moral fabric that we are losing.

no its not, you just havent thought about WHY marriage is such a crucial part of the moral fabric of our society.
lets think about in these terms: homosexuality is not in and of itself physically or mentally damaging (aside from any diseases incurred through sexual activity), which is to say that by just being homosexual in nature and neither acting on it or denying it, you are not harming yourself or anyone else. however, in contradiction of this idea, many homosexuals report feeling emotionally harmed by the reaction of others to their orientation, or were physically harmed through the ignorant actions of people who persecute gays. many homosexuals (especially male) seem to go through a period of self-loathing and extreme denial which often results in psychological or self-inflicted physical damage that takes long years to repair. why?
I would argue it is because this damage does not occur just by virtue of their being homosexuals, it occurs because of the negative social stigma and damage to interpersonal relationships that is incurred when someone chooses to live an openly gay lifestyle in a society where it is deemed perverted or evil. in that way, harm is caused to gay people by the reactions of society at large and their own natural reactions to being alienated from the culture they seek to be a part of. all of this stems from a choice they believe they have never made about which sex to be attracted to.
if we lived in a culture where homosexuality was the norm none of this would occur. if we lived in a culture where homosexuality was not considered abberant behavior this would not occur. the damage is caused by the negative connotation that society gives to homosexuality.

now lets turn it around and apply the same reasoning to the harm done to the institution of the family by homosexual unions:
we have defined the structure of the family through the lens of marriage. marriage is the foundation of what we as a society consider to be a "real" or "viable" or "acceptable" family. as a result of this definition, the family is seen by society as the primary unit through which ideas about morality and normalcy and cultural conformity are commmunicated, the family becomes an instrument of moral instruction, and by extension is assumed to be morally right itself. because of this, any new form of family that comes down the line and threatens to disrupt the established paradigm is deemed as a threat to the basic threads of that society's moral fabric.

it is however, possible that the idea upon which the existing example of "correct" family structure is based is in fact fundamentally flawed and requires a denial of the possibility of any other forms of equally correct family composition in order to thrive and preserve the existing social order. in this case, any alternative to the nuclear family must be dismissed out of hand as abberrant, undesireable, or threatening to the moral fiber because society has painted itself into a corner and established a basis for morality that cannot allow for any challenge to its authority, lest it be revealed for the useless sham that it is. this flawed ideal is not defensible in a logical way so its adherants must seek to discredit alternatives as "evil" or "sinful" or "threatening" in order to scare other people away from them and marginalize the groups that practice them.

society's definition of the mother-father-child family structure as the only morally correct one is what allows homosexual marriage, no fault divorce, polygamy, and unwed cohabitation to threaten the moral fiber. in truth, there are many variations on that family structure that can furnish a child with the proper upbringing needed to assimilate properly into society, as long as they are allowed to do so without a black cloud of religious and moral persecution hanging over their head causing them undue emotional, physical, and psychic harm.

the religiously based authoritarian moralism of our society, and its unwillingness to permit deviation from the established norm without suffering terrible consequences will eventually lead to a shift towards unsustainability. this is because it will reach a crucial point where the morals are either enforced way too rigidly, resulting in the alienation of nearly every subsection of the culture, or where the morals are continuously eroded to the point where they lose any kind of real meaning for people and are no longer valuable.
the way out of this quagmire of morality is to adopt a set of social values that are less rigidly defined to begin with, or can at least adapt over time to accomodate some minor variance from the norms of an obselete moral past. if our ethics as a society were based more on humanistic principles where they could be demonstrated to exist for concrete and commonly accepted reasons as opposed to the absolutist commands of a largely cruel and inaccessible god-figure, we would be far better off, and moral fabric would be less easily threatened by change or diversity.

 

[Baron Max]

Same sex marriage IS NOT ABOUT homosexual sex. It's about equal rights under the law.

Under the usual laws of marriage, a male can NOT marry another male (ditto for females). This law does NOT discriminate against homosexuals in any way, shape or form ...males, any male, can NOT marry another male.

Or are you suggesting that homosexual males are NOT males??? If not, what the hell are they? Or are you suggesting that SPECIAL laws be enacted for homosexuals??? ...surely not!

...as Americans we have always been told we are equal under the law, but the govenment has lied for two and a quarter centuries.

Explain how the marriage laws are not applied equally to heteros and homos. And please remember, there is nothing in the law that says anything about "love" or such crap!

It is NOT up to the government to decide who can be a "family."

Hmm, I believe that's wrong! In fact, it IS up to the government or, if you prefer the term, it's up to "society" do make those decisions.

Hetero males can not marry another male, homosexual males can not marry another male. I see no discrimination whatsoever in that law.

Baron Max

 

[charles cure]

Under the usual laws of marriage, a male can NOT marry another male (ditto for females). This law does NOT discriminate against homosexuals in any way, shape or form ...males, any male, can NOT marry another male.

Or are you suggesting that homosexual males are NOT males??? If not, what the hell are they? Or are you suggesting that SPECIAL laws be enacted for homosexuals??? ...surely not!

Explain how the marriage laws are not applied equally to heteros and homos. And please remember, there is nothing in the law that says anything about "love" or such crap!

Hetero males can not marry another male, homosexual males can not marry another male. I see no discrimination whatsoever in that law.

Baron Max

your argument here is a fallacy. you see the issue from only one side. the law does discriminate because it fails to consider a whole population within society. the law, taken on its face is not discriminatory, no, males cannot marry males and that goes for all males. the principle that the law is based on is what is discriminatory. the principle is that males should not be allowed to marry other males because the concept of marriage fails to take into consideration or lend any validity to the reality of a homosexual contingent in society. the law itself is inextricably linked to the idea that homosexuality is abberant behavior, and therefore seeks to forbid it from being a legally recognized alternative to heterosexuality. so, while the law may apply equally to all males, it does not apply fairly to all males. its not that hard to grasp.

 

[Hapsburg]

Fact: Dicks do not belong up bottoms.

That ain't what your momma said to me...
Oh, come on, how could you have expected me to skip a chance on that joke?

 

[btimsah]

I was raised by 2 heterosexual parents, yet I came out gay. Oh my God! We should outlaw heterosexual marriage then!

 

[Bells]

I see your point of view, but your perception is blinding you to all implications of marriage in society. It is a crucial part to the moral fabric that we are losing.

What are the implications of marriage in society exactly? If marriage were to pay such a crucial part in the 'moral fabric' of society, then it would be prudent to grant homosexual the right to marry, would it not?

Why shouldn't we as a society not embrace sound Psychology that children are better off with a mother and a father?

What does that have to do with same sex marriages? Children do not automatically stem from any marriage.

There are a high number of children who are brought up by only one parent and some by no parent at all. What of them?

Are you willing to accept polygamy and any other practice that a person does in private? Do you think Christianity could thrive in a society that accepts homosexuality? With all the discrimination laws, could Christians practice their faith and speak their mind?

In case you weren't aware, there are some States in the US that turns a blind eye to polygamy. Some religious beliefs, based on an interpretation of Christianity, do practice polygamy and it is merely accepted.

What does Christianity have to do with accepting homosexuality? Christianity is a mere religion. You have managed to thrive in society where homosexuality is accepted. Homosexuals do exist and are quite open about their sexuality. So how does that affect Christianity? Christianity does not dictate how society is to be governed. It should not. When it is, we end up in wars (eg. think of the highly Christian President who spouted 'God told me to attack Iraq as an example). So how does allowing them to marry affect Christianity? Christians do practice their faiths and speak their mind. But Christians should not deem themselves so superior as to think that they speak for everybody. A bit of humility is needed in that regard.

Now, maybe you have the answer to your original question on why Christians take a political stand. Maybe their faith's well-being depends on it and they are acting out of survival instinct.

Their faith and its well being has nothing to do with giving homosexuals equal rights under law. The law and Christianity are not one and the same. And what kind of religion promotes the discrimination of a whole group of people?

 

[Baron Max]

...because the concept of marriage fails to take into consideration or lend any validity to the reality of a homosexual contingent in society.

You mean somewhat like it fails to lend validity to incestuous marriages? ...and marriages of those under 18? ...or marriages to more than one woman (or more than one man)?

I think the society has accepted the perverse, deviant practises of homos quite well, but there's no reason, no need to permit them any more than to practice their deviant sex acts IN PRIVATE. To permit marriage between homos is nothing more than the society ACCEPTING those sex acts! If we accept the homos' sex acts, how can we not accept sex with animals or bdsm sex acts or incestuous sex or sex with a hole in a tree or any number of other deviant, perverted sexual practices?

...so, while the law may apply equally to all males, it does not apply fairly to all males. its not that hard to grasp.

No, it isn't hard to grasp ....homosexuals want SPECIAL rights under the law! That's exactly it and there ain't no denying it!! And interestingly, it seems that the great majority of people understand that ....thankfully!

Baron Max

 

[SnakeLord]

can i now not respond to certain people because they didnt direct their statements at anyone in particular?

Don't be silly, of course you can. But don't then try and make out that I somehow missed something, (because I didn't instantly agree with anything you said - indeed I didn't even read your posts), all because I give my opinion on the matter.

I am entitled to my opinion right? Well, I did just that and it seemingly isn't good enough for you. I'll say it once more just for kicks:

I don't care whether they can get married, can't get married, etc etc as long as I do not have to partake in it.

If I'm not allowed to state my opinion without you resorting to petty childish insult..

come on, dont be a dick.

.. then tell me. Just turn round and say: "I'm allowed my opinion but you ain't allowed yours", and that will be that.

well you are affected by what other people do

To use your favourite sentence: I think you missed the point. It is entirely inconsequential to me what gays do or don't do or can or can't do as long as they do not involve me in their activities.

You seem so "pro-gay" marriage it distinctly comes across as if you are gay. While that's fine.. (apparently), as a happy heterosexual male with kids and family and a pet dog, I'm not in the slightest concerned over what a bender can or can't do as long as they don't involve me.

you can ignore or refuse to admit the significance of their actions and issues that arise from them, but you cant escape their impact.

What impact? Like I said, as long as nobody invites me to the cermony or the bedroom afterwards, I couldn't honestly give a shit. My family and I get along just fine regardless to what gays do or churches do.

well, you could go live in a hole i guess

No need. I am happy where I am and just let the world get on with it's own shit.

so what is your problem then? if you dont care, why have a stance or a response at all?

I handed out my nice one sentence opinion. That seemingly was not good enough for you, who had to resort to insult over it - so here's another one for you. I take it this one isn't good enough either, so for the sake of keeping you and your opinions happy, I'll just agree with whatever you say.

Do you feel better now?

first off, marriage is only an outdated concept if the nature of it cannot adapt through time to accomodate new realities of society.

I look upon it like I look upon my Friday night poker club. My Friday night poker club is for men only. Women ain't allowed. I don't care if they have loads of money or can play poker, my poker club is for men only. A woman can whinge about it all she likes, but it doesn't change the fact that my poker club is a male poker club.

Marriage is about man and woman, not man and man. You want it to change, and that's fair enough.. Like I said, I don't really care if you can get married or not as long as I am not forced to attend.

allowing gay people to get married doesnt stop heterosexuals from getting married.

Amusingly enough, I never implied that it did. Dunno where you dragged that one from.

the legal part of it is a mere formality except for the fact that it allows married couples to enjoy specific privileges under the letter of the law.

Sure, but then I say that even couples that have been dating for 6 months + should be just as entitled to the same privileges, (lower tax/more parental rights), the same as anyone who has a piece of paper. If we break it down literally to just legal significance, then hell.. I vote lower tax for everyone - whether gay or married or not.

as normal law-abiding people, regardless of what kind of sex they practice in the privacy of their homes, they should be able to be accorded the same privileges under the law as other loving couples who are allowed to marry.

So should everyone else. Why do I, as a high earner, pay 50% tax instead of the typical 23?% tax? I should have the same rights as married people, gay people, and people on the dole and pay the lower tax band. I have to pay more just because I took the time to get an education? Fuck that shit. As we're talking legal aspects I agree with you fully, other than it shouldn't just apply to married people - but everyone that doesn't want to pay higher tax.

as for that stupid little thing about people not being able to marry frogs or hedgehogs or anything else, well youre right, but thats completely different from an issue about whether marriage should take place between two humans

It wasn't stupid, because every argument for one thing is that much closer to an argument for something else. Bonking animals is illegal because it's wrong, and obviously society thinks that men marrying men is also wrong. Both wrong, and thus both given less rights than those society considers as doing 'right'.

oh wait, i forgot you dont care about it.

Now you're learning. I gave my opinion that needed no response whatsoever. You decided to engage me in discussion and now whinge that I'm engaging in discussion but it isn't to your liking because it doesn't agree with every word you say? Please.

its logical that laws should be written to apply fairly.

Laws are written, (generally), to apply to that which society deems 'right'. Homosexual marriage is not deemed as 'right', and thus the law does not permit it. That's as logical as it needs to be. A blind man can scream and yell that it is unfair for him not to be allowed to drive, but if society perceives the act as 'wrong', the law will reflect it.

if they aren't, you can't depend on them to provide any authority. the marriage law doesnt apply fairly, it denies a segment of the population the right to have their relationship legally recognized because of the nature of their sexual relationship.

Because society deems that relationship to be wrong - and it is.

it is at its best discriminatory because the criteria for a valid relationship in this society is set by the bible, despite the fact that not all people accept that document as fair or authoritative or feel that they should be forced to live according to its biases.

I have just as much dislike for religious folk as you do, but in this instance I would be inclined to agree with society that homosexuality is wrong.. marriage or not.

the definition that society at large will accept that is based on ideas that have a basis is logic and are able to be demonstrated as fair and capable of promoting the good of all people in a society (including the minority interest).

And.. society at large determines that homosexuality is 'wrong', and thus the law does not allow them to marry.

the definition that has moved away from law as based in religious superstition and given authority by god instead of man himself.

Although religion certainly plays it's part, I literally detest religion and yet find myself in agreement with the religious. I think it is unfair to just disagree with something on the basis that religious people agree with it - which is seemingly why you're here debating for it as opposed to against it. gods need not apply to realise that man and man just isn't normal.

and this is clearly splitting hairs i guess, but does that last statment mean that you think anal sex as practiced between a man and a woman should be cause to prevent them from getting married?

No, because marriage is about woman and man, not man and man. If a woman was to grow a beard she still wouldn't get into my Friday night poker club. The reason I brought it up was to simply declare that such thing is a large reason as to why society deems homosexuality as wrong - and a large part in why they have no legal right to marry.

allowed and encouraged are two different concepts, get your head around it.

Rarely. Get your head round that.

how do you place a judgement of right or wrong on something that someone else does that causes no one any unwanted physical or mental harm and that you are not being forced to do yourself against your will?

Sex education lesssons.

there are all kinds of subcultures who express themselves sexually in ways that are antithetical to reproduction. should those people not be able to get married either?

You would have to ask the owner of the marriage club.

or is it maybe just that you personally think that gay people are freaks or disgusting and so in your own opinion you place them on some special pedestal of perversity that no other group of sexual deviants can come close to?

No other? Pff a long way off pal. Some dude I know had a video on his mobile phone of some woman shitting into another woman's mouth. I wouldn't suggest that they be allowed to marry either. There are all kinds of perversions - I guess we all have our own distinct little perversions of one kind or another, but I wouldn't be here arguing for marriage rights for any of them. Sure, I think we should all pay less tax, but infringing on someone elses beliefs and values because you don't think it's fair is silly. Then again, as I've said.. let them do whatever they bloody well want to. As long as they don't get in my way - and don't demand access to my Friday night poker club, I don't honestly give a shit.

so what? maybe what isn't right is that you are so biased against people whose behavior has no effect on you

Well isn't that a contradiction? Just a minute ago you were saying everything affects me and I need to live in a hole to avoid it, now you're saying it doesn't. Make up your mind please. Of course, I agree with your latest statement, which is why my original one sentence opinion was that I don't give a shit as long as it doesn't affect me.

not true. when you legalize one thing, you do not magically give your approval to everything else that shares a similarity with it.

Amusingly, I never implied that it did.

your point of view here is the one normally taken by people who think that there is only one way to live, and that if everyone doesnt live that way, then the way of life itself is diminished or destroyed and society will be in ruins.

A tad silly given that all I said was "I don't give a shit what they or you do". I'm a live and let live kinda guy.. I do not care as long as they do not interfere with my life.

Well, first of all you do care.

A guy just can't win. I gave the shortest possible opinion, which wasn't good enough - so I engage in discussion and find that's also not good enough. What exactly do you want from me?

You seem to be against gay anal sex, more than anything. Which begs the question; What happened to you?

What happened to me? Oh, you want the whole story? Ok..

I was born, grew up, got an education, got a job, got a woman, had kids and now chill with beer, smokes, vindaloo's and my Friday night poker club.

Happy?

Anal sex is hardly a gay-only thing and would only be considered "unnatural" by someone who only has sex in the missionairy position everytime, if at all.

I would seriously suggest the Karma Sutra right about now. If you think fanny sex = 1 position then you have a hell of a lot of learning to do. Indeed if you also think that no bum shoving = no sex at all, then you're what I would classify as seriously inexperienced when it comes to having intercourse.

Either that or you were desperately trying to be amusing.

If you see nothing "unnatural" with man and man then I guess I cannot help you. Oh but wait.. you're gay - you wouldn't.

You're obsession with anal sex is rather strange, when you consider many straight couples engage in anal sex.

Yes, they do.. but the fact remains that the anal passage is "naturally" for the exit of waste material, not for the entry of someones dick.

 

[charles cure]

I am entitled to my opinion right? Well, I did just that and it seemingly isn't good enough for you. I'll say it once more just for kicks:

I don't care whether they can get married, can't get married, etc etc as long as I do not have to partake in it.

If I'm not allowed to state my opinion without you resorting to petty childish insult..

.. then tell me. Just turn round and say: "I'm allowed my opinion but you ain't allowed yours", and that will be that.

youre allowed any opinion you want, just because i debate you on the subject doesn't mean your opinion can't still be the same as it was before once we're done. do you also miss the point of posting on a discussion forum? you air your opinion, and people will agree with it or contest it, thats why we are all here. if you arent prepared to defend your opinion in a discussion, then i would say youre not ready to post it on a discussion board. deal with it. in addition to that i happened not to agree with your assessment of the issue so i said something, but you acted like i ought not to have said anything because your post wasn't directed at me and i didn't share your opinion. that's more childish than whatever i did. you can choose not to respond if you want, maybe thats what you should have done since you "don't care" about the issue at all.